classiﬁcation of domain-speciﬁc bpmn extensions...performance measurement a own ext uml explicit...

Classification of Domain-Specific BPMN

Extensions

Richard Braun and Werner Esswein

Technische Universitat DresdenChair of Wirtschaftsinformatik, esp. Systems Development

01062 Dresden, Germany{richard.braun,werner.esswein}@tu-dresden.de

Abstract. BPMN is a standard for modeling business processes andprovides meta model concepts for the design of extensions. Thus, domain-specific extensions of the BPMN are facilitated. This research articleprovides an overview of BPMN extension development by the descrip-tive analysis and classification of 30 BPMN extensions. An extensiveliterature review was conducted in order to find published extensions.Further, a classification framework was designed to enable a comprehen-sive analysis of each extension. The analysis showed, that four out of fiveextensions are not compliant with the BPMN standard. Also, we foundseveral methodological shortcomings that should be tackled in furtherresearch.

Keywords: BPMN Extensions, Domain-specific Extension, ModelingLanguages, DSML, DSML Repository, Business Process Modeling.

1 Introduction and Motivation

The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is an ISO standard for mod-eling business processes and a de-facto standard in professional practice [1], [2].BPMN provides a set of generic business process elements, independent from aspecific domain. However, it is often necessary to extend BPMN with individ-ual concepts in order to represent characteristics of a particular domain (e.g.,health care or security management). On the one hand, such domain-specificaspects can be integrated within a dedicated domain-specific modeling language(DSML) [3], [4]. On the other hand, BPMN can be extended with domain-specificconcepts in order to reuse the modeling language, take advantage of its bene-fits (e.g., standardization, tool support) and avoid expensive development of aDSML from the scratch. This research article investigates the current state ofthe art of BPMN extension development. A BPMN extension is understood asthe enhancement of functionality of the BPMN, following the extension mecha-nism defined in specification. In its own, the standard-conform BPMN extensionis neither useful nor functional (referring to [5], [6]).

U. Frank et al. (Eds.): PoEM 2014, LNBIP 197, pp. 42–57, 2014.c© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Classification of Domain-Specific BPMN Extensions 43

1.1 BPMN Extensibility

BPMN is one of very few modeling languages that provides generic extensionelements within the meta model that enables the definition of domain-specificlanguage extensions [7]. BPMN provides an extension by addition mechanismthat ensures the validity of the BPMN core elements ([8], [7], p. 44). The fol-lowing elements are defined for the specification of valid BPMN extensions: AnExtension Definition is a named group of new attributes which can be usedby BPMN elements. Thus, new elements can be built implicitly. An ExtensionDefinition consists of several Extension Attribute Definitions that define theparticular attributes. Values of these Extension Attribute Definitions can be de-fined by the Extension Attribute Value class. Therefore, primitive types from theMeta Object Facility can be used [7]. The element Extension binds the entireextension definition and its attributes to a BPMN model definition. By doingso, all extension elements are accessible for existing BPMN elements ([7], p. 58).Further, external relationships can used for the integration of BPMN artifactsand UML elements, for instance (see [7], p. 62). Despite the fact that BPMN pro-vides a well-defined extension interface, a process model for the straightforwarddevelopment of extensions is missing. To the best of our knowledge, there is onlyone research article addressing this problem: [8] defines a model-transformationbased procedure model for the methodical development of valid BPMN exten-sions models based on conceptual domain models. However, the approach lacksin terms of a detailed analysis and consideration of the domain since it is a moreengineering driven approach that aims to provide clear transformation rules.Therefore, [9] extends the method with regard to the domain analysis and out-line several preceded steps in order to conceptualize the domain and identify areasoned need for extension.

1.2 Research Objective

As stated above, a detailed process model for the application of these extensionelements is missing and the development of an extension remains more or less“ad hoc”. Especially from a design science perspective, this lack of rigor is insuf-ficient (e.g., [10]). For example, there is neither guidance in terms of the domainconceptualization nor a semantic analysis between a specific domain conceptand BPMN elements. The mentioned approaches address this issue, but eitherlack in terms of domain analysis [8] or level of detail and applicability [9]. Weargue, that it is crucial to evolve a holistic process model for BPMN extensiondevelopment to ensure standard conformity, comprehensibility and falsifiability.Therefore, it is unavoidable to gain a comprehensive overview of the state ofthe art in the context of BPMN extensions. Thus, this research article aims toprovide a systematic, descriptive analysis of BPMN extensions in order to giveindications of both methodological and domain-specific aspects within BPMNextension development.

44 R. Braun and W. Esswein

1.3 Research Method

In order to find published BPMN extensions, a systematic literature reviewwas conducted. We have applied the method of [12] that was configured asfollows: The scope of our review was a broad analysis of BPMN extensions.According to [11] the review is conceptual, has a research outcome focus, aims tointegrate existing results (to a classification schema), has an exhaustive coverageand addresses a general audience. Second, the topic was conceptualized by thedefinition of relevant search phrases and keywords (see [12]), such as “BPMNextension”, “extend BPMN”, “enhance BPMN”, “extending BPMN”, “domain-specifc BPMN” and “domain BPMN”. Third, the literature search process wasconducted [12]. Therefore, the journal and conference list of the german researchorganizationWKWI was used [13]. Also, literature databases and search engineslike Google Scholar, Springer Link, Science Direct, AIS Digital Library and theIEEE Xplore Digital Library were used. Besides, each found article was usedfor a backward search. This search procedure resulted in a set of 39 articles,whose content were reviewed. Publications, focusing on early BPMN extensionsthat are now part of the language (e.g., [14]) or articles that did not provideany conceptual advices on their extension (e.g., [15], [16]), were discarded and aset of 30 articles remain for in-detail analysis that was conducted subsequently.Therefore, a multi-perspective analysis framework has been designed in orderto facilitate a comparison of the identified extensions. The systematization ofall BPMN extensions and the derivation of the state of the art represent thesynthesis of the review process. Finally, research gaps and aspects for furtherresearch were derived.

The structure of the article is as follows. Section 2 presents the extensionanalysis framework containing four main classes and all relevant criteria. Insection 3, the results of the literature review are analyzed within the framework.Section 4 provides indications as a result of the classification. The article endswith a short summary.

2 BPMN Extension Analysis Framework

The reasonable analysis of BPMN extensions requires the definition of a descrip-tion framework. In the context of BPMN, there are no comparable approaches,that could be leveraged for the derivation of such criteria. However, there arefew research articles addressing a systematic overview or classification of exten-sions in the field of the workflow modeling language BPEL [6] and UML profiles[17]. [6] evolves a classification framework for BPEL extensions based on theanalysis of 62 publications. Since their work focusses on workflow aspects, thereuse of the entire classification framework is not reasonable. Nevertheless, somecriteria like standard conformity, extension purpose and basic characteristics areadapted in the context of BPMN. [17] provides a systematic review of UMLprofiles based on the analysis of 39 publications. Although the focus lies on theanalysis of UML profiles, the consideration of extended meta classes (see [17],p. 413) is promising in the context of BPMN since both modeling languages are


defined by the Meta Object Facility (MOF). Referring to the mentioned worksand the research objective of this paper, the following classes for descriptiveanalysis of BPMN extensions were defined: “Basic attributes”, “standard con-formity”, “applied method” and “extension”. Each class, its containing criteriaand all classification values are described in the tables subsequently. If necessary,detailed explanations of single criteria are given.

Table 1. Basic Attributes

Criterion Description ValuesAuthors Authors of the publication (reference)Year Year of publication 2007 - 2014Version Affected BPMN version BPMN 1.x; BPMN 2.0 (since 2011)Medium Publication medium J (journal); P (proceedings); O (others)Title Title of the extension e.g., BPMN4WSNDomain Affected domain or area of discourse e.g., Artifacts or ResourcesPurpose Derived purpose D (descriptive); A (analytic); E (execu-

tion)

The criterion Domain describes the affected domain, the application fields orthe general area of discourse of the extension. During analysis, similar domains(e.g., Security Management and Risk Management) were merged to single do-mains (e.g., Risk Management) in order to consolidate them. Criterion Purposestands for the primarily purpose of the extension. An extension was classified as“descriptive” (D) if its focus lies on the description of a domain. It was classifiedas “analytic” (A) if the main purpose consists in facilitating some kind of analy-sis of existing BPMN models. If the extension aims to support process execution(e.g., supporting domain-specific transformation to BPEL), the extension wasclassified as “execution” (E).

Table 2. Standard Conformity

Criterion Description ValuesDefinition Type of extension definition Valid Ext; Own Ext; Own Ext Nota-

tion; NoneAbstract Syntax Definition of the meta model e.g., UML, Ext MM (BPMN exten-

sion meta model)Concrete Syntax Definition of new notations explicit; implicit (by example); noneSemantic Conflicts Are there any semantic conflicts with

the BPMN standard?no; yes

The “Standard Conformity” class contains criteria regarding the syntacticaland semantic correctness of the extension in the light of the BPMN standard(see section 1). Criterion Definition describes the way the extension is definedand explicated. “Valid Ext” stands for the definition as BPMN extension model.“Own Ext” outlines the application of a dedicated definition (e.g., UML model).“Own Ext Notation” stands for a solely graphical definition (e.g., by new icons).


Table 3. Method

Criterion Description ValuesRequirements Anal-ysis

Is there any analysis or consideration of require-ments to the extension?

explicit; implicit; no

Semantic Fit Check Is there any discussion of the semantic fit of do-main concepts with BPMN elements for the iden-tification of extension need?

yes; partly; no

Reuse of Artifacts Many domains already provide some artifactssuch as ontologies. The reuse and integration ofthem might be useful.

yes; partly; no

Process Model Is any methodological approach applied (if yes,which one)?

Stroppi et al.; BPMNext; yes (own); no

Further, the definition of customized or new graphical elements is considered bythe criterion Concrete Syntax. Also, we have analyzed whether a single extensioncontains obvious semantic conflicts.

As stated at the beginning of the paper, the methodological development ofBPMN extensions is important, but BPMN standard does not provide any guid-ance and only very few publications addressing this topic. Thus, both method-ological and domain-analysis aspects are investigated within the class “Method”.For instance, requirements analysis is perceived as essential for the developmentof artifacts. It might be reasonable to reuse existing domain artifacts for reasonsof redundancy and communication with domain experts. Also, a discussion ofthe semantic fit with BPMN elements is necessary to constitute the need forextension elements.

The class “Extension” describes all extensions and customizations for the in-tegration of domain-specific aspects in BPMN. The first part contains all newlyadded elements, relations, properties and diagrams. Therefore, first of all it wasanalyzed whether the extension was defined by a meta model. If not, we have

Table 4. Extension

Criterion Description ValuesNew elements

Elements New elements and enumerations (up to threeexample elements are stated)

(individual)

Count Number of new elements (if the number isin brackets, a meta model is missing and theelements are derived logically; e.g., [18], [19])

(individual)

Size Class Derived extension size class, based on thenumber of extension elements

Heavy (>17); large (11-17);light (6-10); tiny (<6)

Diagrams Does the extension provide a new diagram? yes; noExtended or customized elements

Relations Extending a BPMN element by new naviga-ble relations to or from the element

BPMN element(s)

Properties New owned properties of a BPMN element BPMN element(s)Specialization Adding new sub classes to a BPMN element BPMN element(s)Enhancement Adding a new super class to a BPMN element BPMN element(s)Graphical Custom. Specifying a BPMN element by a new graph-

ical representation (see [7], p. 44)BPMN element(s)

Count Number of extended elements (individual)Extension Style Identified extension styles Codes from table 5


Table 5. Extension Styles

Code Name DescriptionAbstract Syntax

AS-Sp Specialization Specialization of elements by inheriting from the standard el-ement and extending it (e.g., by additional properties).

AS-A Additive (various) Set of both new elements and new relations or properties(both optional and mandatory). Thus, the meta model ex-tension is largely integrated within the BPMN meta model.

AS-A-B Additive (block) Set of new elements that is related to the BPMN core model byonly one or two relationships. Thus, the meta model extensionlooks like a well definable extension block.

AS-En Enumeration Domain-specific ranges in the form of enumeration elements.Semantics

Sem-Co Concretisation Specification of under specified elements (e.g., Lanes [7]).Sem-Ch Change Dedicated change of some element’s semantics, which is not

permitted within BPMN.Concrete Syntax

CS-Dg Diagram, view Adding a new diagram or view to BPMN (e.g., resource dia-gram as complement of the collaboration diagram).

CS-Cu Customization Customization of graphical elements (e.g., data objects).CS-Co Color Color highlighting of elements or parts with special semantics.CS-Ah Ad hoc Elusive definition of an extension by graphical icons, without

any abstract syntax.

tried to identify new elements based on explanations in the research article. Eventhough these explanations were missing, we looked for new, solely graphicallydefined elements (see Graphical Custom.). Criterion Size Class is a simple pa-rameter for the number of new elements 1. Further, the so-called extension stylesof an extension were analyzed in order to get a better understanding of the wayan intended extension was implemented and expressed. Therefore, ten extensionstyles were derived from the set of all 30 extensions inductively. Each extensionstyle is assigned to one of the following classes that were adapted from methodengineering: Abstract syntax, semantics and concrete syntax. Table 5 presentsand describes all styles in detail. Each analyzed extension can have multipleextension styles.

3 BPMN Extension Classification

The conducted literature review resulted in a set of 30 BPMN extensions. Eachextension was analyzed with respect to the abovementioned framework. Figure1 presents the results of the analysis regarding to basic attributes, conformity tothe standard and the applied method. Figure 6 presents the results regarding tothe syntactical definition of the extensions.

3.1 Basic Extension Attributes

Themajority of the considered extensions is related to BPMNversion 2.0 (76,6%).Extensions are mainly published in conference proceedings (60,0%) or as research

1 Size classes were generated by the application of the k-means algorithm over allelement counts (k=4; euclidean distance).


Bas

ic A

ttrib

utes

St

anda

rd C

onfo

rmity

M

etho

d

Authors

Year

Version

Medium

Title

Domain

Purpose

Definition

Abstract Syntax

Concrete Syntax

Semantic Conflicts

Req. Analysis

Semantic Fit Check

Reuse of Artifacts

Process Model

Altu

hhov

et a

l. 20

13 2

.0

J N

o tit

le (S

ecur

ity R

isk

Man

agem

ent)

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t D

O

wn

Ext

N

otat

ion

UM

L E

xplic

it N

o im

plic

it (IS

SR

M)

yes

yes

(ISS

RM

) no

Aw

ad e

t al.

20

09 2

.0 O

N

o tit

le (R

esso

urce

Allo

catio

n C

onst

rain

ts)

Res

sour

ce

E

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L,

OC

L N

o N

o im

plic

it (p

atte

rns)

no

no

no

Boc

ciar

elli

& D

'Am

brog

io

2011

1.x

P

P

yBP

MN

P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

rem

ent

A

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L,

OC

L N

o N

o no

no

ye

s

(MA

RTE

) (y

es)

Bra

mbi

lla e

t al.

2012

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (S

ocia

l BP

M)

Soc

ial B

PM

D

O

wn

Ext

(U

ML)

B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

no

no

B

raun

& E

ssw

ein

2014

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (R

esso

urce

s in

E

ngin

eerin

g)

Res

ourc

e D

V

alid

Ext

E

xt M

M

Exp

licit

No

impl

icit

(ont

olog

y)

yes

yes

(Res

ML)

ye

s: e

xt. o

f Stro

ppi

et a

l. B

raun

et a

l.

2014

2.0

O

BP

MN

4CP

E

-Hea

lth

D

Val

id E

xt

Ext

MM

B

y ex

ampl

e N

o ex

plic

it ye

s ye

s (r

equi

rem

ents

) ye

s: e

xt. o

f Stro

ppi

et a

l. B

ruck

er e

t al.

2012

2.0

P

S

ecur

eBP

MN

R

isk

Man

agem

ent

D

Non

e N

o B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

ye

s

(Sec

ureB

PM

) no

Cha

rfi e

t al.

20

10 2

.0

J A

O4B

PM

N

Asp

ect M

odel

ling

E

Non

e N

o B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

pa

rtly

(A

OP

ele

men

ts)

no

Frie

dens

tab

et a

l.

2012

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (B

usin

ess

Act

ivity

M

onito

ring)

P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

rem

ent

A

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L E

xplic

it N

o im

plic

it (d

escr

iptiv

e)

no

no

no

Gag

ne &

Tru

del

2009

1.x

P

Ti

me-

BP

MN

Ti

me

A

Non

e N

o B

y ex

ampl

e N

o im

plic

it (d

escr

iptiv

e)

no

yes

(tim

e as

pect

s)

no

Gro

ßkop

f 20

07 2

.0 O

N

o tit

le (R

esso

urce

In

form

atio

n La

yer)

R

esou

rces

E

N

one

UM

L N

o N

o no

ye

s no

no

Kop

p et

al.

2012

2.0

J

BP

MN

4TO

SC

A

Clo

ud

D

Non

e N

o E

xplic

it N

o ex

plic

it no

ye

s no

K

orhe

rr &

Lis

t 20

07 1

.x

J N

o tit

le (P

erfo

rman

ce

Mea

sure

s)

Per

form

ance

Mea

sure

men

t A

O

wn

Ext

U

ML

By

exam

ple

No

impl

icit

(des

crip

tive)

no

no

no

Lodh

i et a

l. 20

11 2

.0 O

N

o tit

le (P

roce

ss E

valu

atio

n)

Per

form

ance

Mea

sure

men

t A

O

wn

Ext

N

otat

ion

(UM

L)

By

exam

ple

(No)

no

no

pa

rtly

(eva

l. co

ncep

ts)

no

Lohm

ann

& N

yolt

2011

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (A

rtifa

ct-c

entri

c M

odel

ing)

A

rtifa

cts

D

Non

e N

o B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

no

no

Mag

nani

& M

onte

si

2007

1.x

P

N

o tit

le (C

osts

) P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

rem

ent

A

Non

e N

o B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

no

no

M

agna

ni &

Mon

tesi

20

09 1

.x

O

BP

DM

N

Arti

fact

s A

O

wn

Ext

N

otat

ion

No

Exp

licit

Yes

im

plic

it (fe

atur

e co

mpa

rison

) no

ye

s (d

ata

flow

, ER

M)

no

Mar

cink

owsk

i & K

ucia

pski

201

2 2.

0 J

No

title

(Ris

k H

andl

ing)

R

isk

Man

agem

ent

D

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

no

no

M

ülle

r-W

icko

p &

Sch

ultz

20

13 2

.0

P

No

title

(Pro

cess

Aud

its)

Com

plia

nce

and

Aud

its

D

Val

id E

xt

Ext

MM

E

xplic

it N

o ex

plic

it no

no

(y

es)

BP

MN

ext

. N

atsc

hläg

er

2011

2.0

P

D

eont

ic B

PM

N

Deo

ntic

Ana

lysi

s A

N

one

No

No

No

no

no

yes

(deo

ntic

item

s)

no

Pill

at e

t al.

2012

2.0

P

B

PM

Nt

Sof

twar

e D

evel

opm

ent

D

Ow

n E

xt

Ext

MM

N

o N

o im

plic

it (d

escr

iptio

n)

no

yes

(S

PE

M 2

.0)

(yes

)

Rod

rigue

z et

al.

2007

1.x

J

No

title

(Sec

urity

) R

isk

Man

agem

ent

D

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L,

OC

L E

xplic

it N

o no

pa

rtly

yes

(req

uire

men

ts)

no

Sae

edi e

t al.

2010

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (S

eriv

ce Q

ualit

y R

equi

rem

ents

) Q

ualit

y M

anag

emen

t D

V

alid

Ext

E

xt M

M

By

exam

ple

No

impl

icit

(des

crip

tion)

no

no

(y

es)

BP

MN

ext

. S

alee

m &

Has

san

2012

2.0

J

No

title

(Sec

urity

R

equi

rem

ents

in S

OA

) R

isk

Man

agem

ent

D

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L E

xplic

it N

o no

no

no

no

Sch

leic

her e

t al.

2010

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (C

ompl

ianc

e R

equi

rem

ents

) C

ompl

ianc

e an

d A

udits

D

N

one

No

No

No

no

no

no

no

Stro

ppi e

t al.

2011

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (R

esso

urce

s)

Res

ourc

es

E

Val

id E

xt

Ext

MM

B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

no

(y

es)

BP

MN

ext

. S

ungu

r et a

l. 20

13 2

.0

P

BP

MN

4WS

N

Sen

sors

D

O

wn

Ext

U

ML

Exp

licit

No

expl

icit

no

no

no

Sup

ulni

ece

et a

l. 20

12 2

.0

P

No

title

(kno

wle

dge)

K

now

ledg

e D

N

one

No

Exp

licit

Yes

ex

plic

it no

ye

s

(KM

DL)

no

Wol

ter &

Sch

aad

2007

1.x

P

N

o tit

le (A

utho

rizat

ion

Con

stra

ins)

A

utho

rizat

ion

A

Ow

n E

xt

UM

L B

y ex

ampl

e N

o no

no

no

no

Zor e

t al.

2011

2.0

P

N

o tit

le (M

anuf

actu

ring)

M

anuf

actu

ring

D

Non

e N

o E

xplic

it Y

es

no

partl

y no

no

Fig. 1. Analysis of the extensions regarding their basic attributes, BPMN standardconformity and the applied extension approach or method


J, 23,3%

P, 60,0%

O, 16,7%

D, 56,7%

A, 30,0%

E, 13,3%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Medium Purpose Domain

Fig. 2. Distribution of the observed extension attributes regarding the publicationmedium, the particular purpose and the addressd domain

reports (16,7%). Only every fourth extension is published in a journal, which couldbe interpreted as a lack of maturity in BPMN extension research (see figure 2).Also, we could not find any advice for cumulated research on single extensions.More than half of the publications reveal a descriptive purpose (56,7%) that aimsto describe some domain (e.g., sensor networks [20]). 30% of the extensions aimto enrich BPMN for specific analytical purposes such as process cost [21]. 13,3%focuses run-time or execution-oriented issues like resource allocation constraints[22]. The targeted domains of the extensions are very heterogenous; altogether17 domains were identified. Five publications address performance measurement[23], [24], [21], [25], [26], another five publications deal with issues related to riskmanagement [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] and four extensions are designed for resourcerelated issues [22], [32], [33], [34].

3.2 Standard Conformity

It is remarkable, that only 16,7% of the extensions are defined by the BPMNextension mechanism (see the first piechart in figure 3). Thus, four out of fiveextensions are not compliant with the BPMN meta model! These extensionsare either defined by a dedicated meta modeling approach (36,7%) using UMLor OCL expressions (e.g., [24], [23], [30]). Or these extensions do not have anymeta model and are defined solely by new notation elements (10,0%) like [35].36,7% of the extensions do not present any definition! It has to be stated, thatBPMN extension mechanism was introduced in version 2.0 in January 2011.Thus, actually all eleven extensions published before 2011 could not have anymethodical support. However, the consideration of the 19 extensions publishedafter 2011 reveals that only 21% were defined as BPMN extension meta modelsand still 32% do not provide any structured definition. It became obvious thatthe majority of extensions is not compliant with the BPMN standard.

Modeling language extensions generally requires the definition of customizedor added notation elements (see [7], p. 44). 40% of the analyzed extensionspresent the extended concrete syntax be describing new graphics explicitly. Other40% of the articles present new graphical elements implicitly within demon-stration models. 20% of the extensions do not define or explicate any kind of


graphical extension. Further, BPMN specification claims to not contradict thesemantics of any BPMN element. Within the analysis process, not every part ofeach meta model was checked due to resource limitations and due to the fact thatmost of the articles were peer-reviewed before publication. However, we foundsemantic discrepancies in four extensions: [25] uses Pools and Lanes in order toexpress performances, although these elements are designated for organizationalunits, responsibilities or roles. [35] integrates data objects within the sequenceflow, although they must not have any direct effect on it. In a similar way, [36]integrates non-flow elements within the sequence flow what is not permitted.[37] specializes gateways to material gateways and use them for material trans-formations what is not the scope of gateways. Despite these few irregularities,the majority of the extensions do not contain semantical errors.

no, 53,3% impl.,

30,0%

expl., 16,7%

yes, 13,3% partly,

10,0%

no, 76,7%

yes, 40,0%

partly, 6,7%

no, 53,3%

Stroppi et al.

(2011), 6,7% BPMN

ext., 10,0%

own def. method,

6,7%

no, 76,7%

Definition Requirements Analysis Semantic Fit Check

Reuse of Artifacts Process Model

Valid Ext, 16,7%

None, 36,7%

Own Ext

Not., 10,0%

Own Ext, 36,7%

Fig. 3. Analysis of the extensions regarding their meta model definition and method-ological aspects

3.3 Applied Method

As already shown in section 3.2, the BPMN extension mechanism is rarely ap-plied. Nearly three out of four do not apply any method. These extensions aredeveloped in an ad hoc manner, what impedes the assessment of the replicabil-ity and comprehensibility. 16,7% of the extensions were designed based on theBPMN extension model (five in total), whereby only two applied the processmodel of [8]: [32] and [38]. [38] extends the process model concerning a semanticequivalence check to ensure the necessity of extension. Another two extensions


were designed based on individually outlined procedures [23], [39]. Regardingthe criterion of requirements analysis, approximately one of two articles providerequirements to the extension. One third was stated explicitly (e.g., by a set ofrequirements R1 to Rn, [20]). The rest of these articles describe requirementsimplicitly within the introduction or the description of the application context(e.g., [40]). Three of four articles designed the particular extension without anydeep consideration of the question, whether each requirement or extension de-mand needs necessarily an extension concept (see the middle piechart in figure3). 13,3% conducted a discussion for every concept [27], [33], [32], [38]. Further,nearly half of the extensions make use of existing domain artifacts. For instance,UML profiles [23], [39], domain modeling concepts [27], [32], [36] or requirements[30] are reused within the extension design.

Activities, 24,7%

Process, 15,3%

Common, 14,1%

Data, 14,1%

Artifacts, 9,4%

Gate- ways, 7,1%

Events, 5,9%

0,0%

2,0%

4,0%

6,0%

8,0%

10,0%

12,0%

Dat

a O

bjec

t Ta

sk

Act

ivity

P

roce

ss

Exp

ress

ion

Gat

eway

G

roup

R

esou

rce

Lane

S

eque

nce

Flow

A

rtifa

ct

Eve

nt

Par

ticip

ant

Per

form

er

Text

Ann

otat

ion

Tim

er E

vent

B

ound

ary

Eve

nt

Cho

reog

raph

y C

olla

bora

tion

Com

plex

Gat

eway

C

onne

ctin

g O

bjec

t D

ata

Sta

te

Dat

a S

tore

B

ase

Ele

men

t H

uman

Per

form

er

Man

ual T

ask

Par

alle

l Gat

eway

P

ool (

=Lan

e)

Pro

perty

R

esou

rce

Par

amet

er

Rol

e (R

esou

rce

Rol

e)

Ser

vice

Tas

k Ta

sk T

ype

Use

r Tas

k

BPMN Package BPMN Element

Others, 9,4%

Fig. 4. Distribution of extended BPMN packages and elements

3.4 Domain-specific Extension

Within the extension analysis, only publications with at least one identifiablenew element were considered. The number of new elements had a range be-tween one and 35 elements; on an average of nearly eight elements (e.g., [41],[24]). Examples for particular new elements as well as the derived size classescan be found in figure 6. Although the definition of new diagram types is notconsidered within BPMN, some extensions also provide the definition of newdiagrams like a Resource Structure Diagram [34] or a Secure Business ProcessDiagram [30], [31]. Next to the definition of new elements, BPMN elements arealso extended or customized. As figure 4 shows, primarily Data Objects, Tasks,Activities and Processes are extended. This fact is also emphasized by the pre-sentation of the extended BPMN packages: Elements from the Activity package,the Process package, the Common package (e.g., Resource, Sequence Flow orExpression) and the Data package are extended mainly. It could be concluded,that these elements are predestinated for domain-specific extensions. Especially,


Data Objects and Tasks are often specified within extensions (see figure 6, col-umn “specialization”). The extension of standard BPMN elements is mainlyrealized by new relations (associations in the meta model) or specifications (in-heritances). Generally, the new relations are passive. It means that they are notmandatory from the perspective of the extended element but rather optional;extending the dynamic range of the referencing element. New relations betweenstandard elements are on rare occasions [24]. Also, the extension by owned at-tributes is implemented rarely (e.g., [32], [24], [40]), whereas the specificationof (generic) BPMN elements by new domain specific sub classes seems to be acommon means (e.g., [42], [43], [44], [29], [45]).

Meta model based

(abstract syntax), 62,5% Semantic,

7,1%

Graphical (concrete

syntax), 30,4%

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

AS-A AS-Sp AS-En AS-A-B Sem-Co Sem-Ch CS-Dg CS-Cu CS-Co CS-Ah CS-Te

Extension Style Classes Extension Styles

Abstract Syntax (AS) Semantics (Sem) Concrete Syntax (CS)

Fig. 5. Distribution of identified extensions styles (56 in total over all extensions)

Consequently, the distribution of the applied extension styles reveals that theAS-Sp style (specialization) is one of the most applied extension techniques (seefigure 5). In total, 56 style applications could be identified within the extensiondefinitions. 62,5% of them affect the abstract syntax (meta model), 30,4% arerelated to the graphical notation (concrete syntax) and 7,1% realize some exten-sion by concrete or change some element’s semantics. Unsurprisingly, the (moreor less unspecific) AS-A style is applied the most. The enumeration technique(AS-En) for the domain-specific definition of ranges is used in more than 10% ofall style applications. Within the area of graphical style, there is no dominatingtechnique. Interestingly, CS-Co is not applied often, although BPMN explicitlyemphasize this possibility for artifacts elements [7].

4 Implications

Several implications can be derived based on the analysis of existing BPMN ex-tensions. We argue, that the following aspects should be considered in prospec-tive research works on BPMN extensions.

Strict Use of the BPMN Extension Mechanism: As shown, only veryfew extensions are designed by applying the BPMN extension mechanism. How-ever, such an implementation is indispensable for reasons of standard conformity,


N

ew e

lem

ents

Exte

nded

or c

usto

miz

ed e

lem

ents

Authors

Elements (sample)

Count

Size Class

New Diagram

Relations

Properties

Speciali-zation

Enhance-ment

Graphical Custom.

Extended Elements

Extension Style

Altu

hhov

et a

l. V

ulne

rabi

lity

Poi

nts,

Loc

k, A

ssoc

iatio

n Fl

ow

3 Ti

ny

- D

ata

Sto

re, D

ata

Obj

ect,

Task

-

- -

- 3

CS

-Cu,

CS

-Co,

AS

-A

Aw

ad e

t al.

O

rgan

izat

iona

l Rol

e, P

rofil

e, C

ase,

...

6 Li

ght

- Ta

sk, P

roce

ss, L

ane

Rol

e -

- 4

AS

-A, C

S-C

o B

occi

arel

li &

D'A

mbr

ogio

G

a W

orkl

oad

Eve

nt, A

rriv

al P

atte

rn, P

a Q

ualif

icat

ion,

...

11

Larg

e -

Col

labo

ratio

n, p

roce

ss (d

irect

ion

of

asso

ciat

ion

is n

ot d

efin

ed)

- -

- -

2 A

S-A

, CS

-Te

Bra

mbi

lla e

t al.

Soc

ial M

onito

ring,

Soc

ial B

ehav

iour

, UR

I, ...

14

La

rge

- -

- Ta

sk

- -

1 A

S-S

p B

raun

& E

ssw

ein

Hum

an R

esou

rce,

Mat

eria

l, A

lloca

tion

Sta

tes,

...

17

Larg

e -

Tim

er E

vent

, Par

ticip

ant

Dat

a O

bjec

t P

rope

rty, R

esou

rce

- -

5 A

S-A

, AS

-Sp,

AS

-En,

S

em-C

o B

raun

et a

l.

Med

ical

Doc

umen

t, C

PG

Ref

eren

ce, D

iagn

osis

Ta

sk, .

.. 14

La

rge

- A

ctiv

ity, G

roup

, Gat

eway

, Pro

cess

, Dat

a O

bjec

t -

Dat

a O

bjec

t, Ta

sk, P

aral

lel

Gat

eway

, Com

plex

Gat

eway

, E

xpre

ssio

n

- -

9 A

S-A

, AS

-Sp,

AS

-En,

S

em-C

o

Bru

cker

et a

l. A

cces

s C

ontro

l, S

epar

atio

n of

Dut

y, B

indi

ng o

f D

uty,

...

(4)

Tiny

- -

- -

- 0

AS

-A

Cha

rfi e

t al.

P

oint

cuts

, Adv

ice

(2)

Tiny

- -

- -

- 0

CS

-Cu

Frie

dens

tab

et a

l.

Dur

atio

n, P

roce

ss S

ectio

n, Q

uant

itativ

e Li

mit,

...

35

Hea

vy

(yes

) D

ata

Obj

ect,

Dat

a S

tate

, Pro

cess

, E

xpre

ssio

n, S

eque

nce

Flow

A

ctiv

ity,

Pro

cess

- -

- 6

AS

-A, A

S-S

p, A

S-E

n,

CS

-Dg

Gag

ne &

Tru

del

Tim

e D

ate

Exp

ress

ions

, Tem

pora

l Con

stra

int

Dec

orat

ors

(2)

Tiny

-

(Tem

pora

l Dep

ende

ncie

s, T

empo

ral

Con

stra

int A

ttrib

utes

) -

- -

0 A

S-A

Gro

ßkop

f P

erfo

rmer

Rol

e, P

roce

ssor

Rol

e, A

ctor

3

Tiny

-

- A

ctiv

ity

- -

- 1

AS

-A

Kop

p et

al.

TOS

CA

Nod

e M

anag

emen

t Tas

k, T

OS

CA

Scr

ipt

Task

, TO

SC

A D

ata

Obj

ect,

.. (4

) Ti

ny

- -

- Ta

sk, D

ata

Obj

ect

- -

2 A

S-S

p

Kor

herr

& L

ist

Wai

ting

Tim

e, W

orki

ng T

ime,

Pro

cess

Goa

l, ...

12

La

rge

- P

ool,

Pro

cess

, Gro

up, E

vent

, Tim

er

Eve

nt

- -

- -

5 A

S-A

-B

Lodh

i et a

l. M

etric

Val

ues,

Col

ors,

Rul

es/C

ondi

tion,

Pro

babi

lity,

D

imen

sion

al A

ttrib

utes

, Con

tent

/Stru

ctur

e 6

Ligh

t -

Act

ivity

, Gat

eway

s, C

onne

ctin

g O

bjec

ts,

Arte

fact

s, L

anes

-

- -

- 5

AS

-A, C

S-C

o, S

em-C

h

Lohm

ann

& N

yolt

Pla

ceho

lder

con

tain

er

(1)

Tiny

(y

es)

- -

Eve

nts,

Cho

reog

raph

ies

(onl

y gr

aphi

cally

!) -

- 2

CS

-Cu,

(CS

-Dg)

Mag

nani

& M

onte

si 2

007

Sim

ple

Cos

ts, C

ost I

nter

vals

, Ave

rage

Cos

ts

3 Ti

ny

- Ta

sk, G

atew

ay, A

ctiv

ity

- -

- -

3 C

S-A

h M

agna

ni &

Mon

tesi

200

9 S

tore

, Ent

ity, R

elat

ions

hip,

...

7 Li

ght

- -

- -

- D

ata

obje

cts

1 C

S-C

o

Mar

cink

owsk

i & K

ucia

pski

Ris

k Fa

ctor

, Ris

k Ty

pe, R

isk

Han

dler

9

Ligh

t -

Seq

uenc

e Fl

ow, R

esou

rce,

Par

ticip

ant

- A

rtefa

ct, T

ask

- -

5 A

S-S

p, A

S-E

n M

ülle

r-W

icko

p &

Sch

ultz

A

ccou

nt E

ntry

, Deb

it A

nd C

redi

t, A

ccou

nt, B

alan

ce

4 Ti

ny

- -

- D

ata

Obj

ect,

Gro

up, T

ext

Ann

otat

ion

- -

3 A

S-S

p

Nat

schl

äger

D

eont

ic T

ask,

O(T

ask)

, X(T

ask)

, P(T

ask)

, ...

(6)

Ligh

t -

- -

Task

-

- 1

- P

illat

et a

l. Ta

ilore

d B

ase

Ele

men

t 1

Tiny

-

- -

- -

- 0

AS

-Sp

Rod

rigue

z et

al.

Sec

urity

Req

uire

men

t, In

tegr

ity, P

rivac

y, ..

. 13

La

rge

yes

- -

Pro

cess

(Bus

ines

s P

roce

ss

Dia

gram

) -

- 1

AS

-A-B

, AS

-A, C

S-D

g

Sae

edi e

t al.

Rel

iabi

lity,

Cos

t, R

espo

nse

Tim

e, ..

. 7

Ligh

t -

Act

ivity

-

- -

- 1

AS

-A

Sal

eem

& H

assa

n A

cces

s C

ontro

l, A

uthe

ntic

atio

n, A

utho

rizat

ion,

...

8 Li

ght

yes

- -

- -

- 0

AS

-Sp,

CS

-Cu,

CS

-Dg

Sch

leic

her e

t al.

Com

plia

nce

Sco

pe, C

ompl

ianc

e R

ule,

Lan

guag

e In

dica

tor

(3)

Tiny

-

- -

- -

- 0

AS

-A-B

Stro

ppi e

t al.

Res

ourc

e P

rivila

ge, R

esou

rce

Bas

e, S

ubsu

mpt

ion,

...

17

La

rge

yes

Res

ourc

e, R

esou

rce

Par

amet

er,

Ele

men

t, B

ound

ary

Eve

nt, U

ser T

ask,

H

uman

Per

form

er, E

xpre

ssio

n

- -

- -

7 A

S-A

, AS

-En,

CS

-Dg

Sun

gur e

t al.

WS

N T

ask,

tWS

NO

pera

tion,

tWS

NP

erfo

rmer

, ...

7 Li

ght

- (R

esou

rce

Ass

ignm

ent)

Exp

ress

ion

- P

erfo

rmer

, Ser

vice

Tas

k -

- 3

AS

-Sp,

AS

-A, A

S-E

n S

upul

niec

e et

al.

Dat

a O

bjec

t, In

form

atio

n O

bjec

t, K

now

ledg

e

(3)

Tiny

-

Act

ivity

, Tas

k Ty

pe, R

ole

(Per

form

er),

Dat

a O

bjec

t -

- -

- 4

CS

-Ah,

(Sem

-Ch)

Wol

ter &

Sch

aad

Aut

horiz

atio

n C

onst

rain

t 1

Tiny

-

Man

ual T

ask,

Gro

up (n

ew re

latio

n, L

ane

- Te

xt A

nnot

atio

n -

- 4

AS

-A, A

S-S

p Zo

r et a

l. P

arts

Con

tain

er, M

achi

nes

and

Tool

s Fl

ow

Con

nect

or, .

.. 10

Li

ght

- -

- G

atew

ay, T

ask,

Res

ourc

e,

Seq

uenc

e Fl

ow

Act

ivity

-

5 C

S-A

h

Fig. 6. Analysis of the extensions regarding new and extended elements


comprehensibility, model exchange and tool support. For instance, model engi-neers fail in reusing the most BPMN extensions since they do not provide avalid BPMN extension model. Thus, it is necessary to transform the provideddedicated meta model into a BPMN conform model in order to integrate itwithin a BPMN tool. Also, the communication within the research communityis hampered by this shortcoming. In the context of method engineering, it isalso necessary to define the concrete syntax of each extension element explicitlyto avoid misunderstandings. The semantics of a new element or its relations toBPMN elements should be described in detail in order to support its application.

Integrated Methodological Support Is Necessary: As stated at thebeginning of this article, BPMN lacks in term of providing an extension pro-cess model. Thus, most of the considered BPMN extensions are not designedrigorously. There seems to be a gap between the domain-specific definition ofextension requirements, their conceptualization and the implementation as validmeta model. The last aspect is successfully solved by [8] and few extensionsmake use of its proclaimed transformation procedure. However, the early phasesof extension planning and design are still not guided. Therefore, we see the needfor an integrated process model for BPMN extension development that focusesthe domain analysis and conceptualization phase. For example, there should bea systematic support for the decision whether any domain concept can be rep-resented within the “semantic scope” of a standard element or not. We suppose,that more than a few BPMN extensions do not exploit the entire expressivenessof BPMN. Besides, research on the integration of domain-specific artifacts withinBPMN extensions and DSMLs in general should be intensified, since such arti-facts (e.g., ontologies, taxonomies) provide well-defined domain knowledge thatcould complement domain expert knowledge.

BPMN Language and Extension Design: It became obvious, that spe-cific aspects are often demanded. Especially, a better resource and data objectmodeling needs to be supported by BPMN, albeit BPMN will not be understoodas any kind of a “data-flow language” ([7], p. 22). Referring to enterprise archi-tecture frameworks, an extension of the BPMN regarding several views (e.g.,resource perspective) is promising. Hereof, further research should consider thequestion, how to extend BPMN with new diagrams or views. Currently, such anextension is not designated. Also, based on our analysis of the so-called extensionstyles, a deeper analysis of extension patterns is necessary in order to providespecific patterns or guidelines for given extension purposes.

5 Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach addressing the com-parison and classification of BPMN extensions in order to present the currentstate of the art. Therefore, an extensive literature review of BPMN extensionswas conducted that results in a set of 30 publications that were subjected anin-depth analysis. For the comparison and classification, a four-part extensionanalysis framework was designed containing criteria on the extension itself and


the applied procedures. Based on the application of this framework, several im-plications were derived.

First, authors of BPMN extension should strictly use the BPMN extensionmechanism in order to provide a valid extension and enable model exchange-ability (currently less than 20% provide valid BPMN extensions). Second, weidentified a need for an integrated methodological support of extension devel-opment, especially in terms of domain analysis and the comparison of domainelements with BPMN standard elements. Third, we have identified a recogniz-able need for the support of resource and data oriented modeling aspects withinBPMN. In this context, especially the question of extending BPMN (or a mod-eling language in general) with new diagrams and views should be considered.Regarding to the identified extension styles, it might be promising to developextension patterns (or at least guidelines) for specific extension needs in orderto support the design process.

References

1. Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: Bpmn: An introduction to the standard. ComputerStandards and Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)

2. ISO: Iso/iec 19510:2013 - International organization for standardization (iso)(2013)

3. Frank, U.: Outline of a method for designing domain-specific modelling languages.ICB Research Report 42, Universitat Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2010)

4. Mohagheghi, P., Haugen, Ø.: Evaluating domain-specific modelling solutions. In:Trujillo, J., Dobbie, G., Kangassalo, H., Hartmann, S., Kirchberg, M., Rossi, M.,Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zimanyi, E., Frasincar, F. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6413,pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

5. Lammel, R., Ostermann, K.: Software extension and integration with type classes.In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programmingand Component Engineering, pp. 161–170. ACM (2006)

6. Kopp, O., Gorlach, K., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F., Reiter, M., Schumm, D.,Sonntag, M., Strauch, S., Unger, T., Wieland, M., et al.: A classification of bpelextensions. Journal of Systems Integration 2(4), 3–28 (2011)

7. OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) - Version 2.0. Object Man-agement Group (OMG) (2011)

8. Stroppi, L.J.R., Chiotti, O., Villarreal, P.D.: Extending BPMN 2.0: Method andtool support. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011.LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 59–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

9. Braun, R., Schlieter, H.: Requirements-based development of bpmn extensions –the case of clinical pathways. In: 1st International Workshop on the Interrelationsbetween Requirements Engineering and Business Process Management (2014)

10. Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design science research in information systems. In:Design Research in Information Systems. Integrated Series in Information Systems,vol. 22, pp. 9–22. Springer, US (2010)

11. Cooper, H.M.: Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews.Knowledge in Society 1(1), 104–126 (1988)

12. Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Niehaves, B., Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R.,Cleven, A.: Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documentingthe literature search process. In: ECIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 161 (2009)


13. WKWI: Wi-orientierungslisten. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(2), 155–163 (2008)14. Decker, G., Puhlmann, F.: Extending BPMN for modeling complex choreographies.

In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 24–40.Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

15. Gao, F., Zaremba, M., Bhiri, S., Derguerch, W.: Extending bpmn 2.0 with sensorand smart device business functions. In: 2011 20th IEEE International Workshopson Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE),pp. 297–302. IEEE (2011)

16. Zor, S., Gorlach, K., Leymann, F.: Using bpmn for modeling manufacturing pro-cesses. In: Proceedings of 43rd CIRP International Conference on ManufacturingSystems, pp. 515–522 (2010)

17. Pardillo, J.: A systematic review on the definition of UML profiles. In: Petriu,D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394,pp. 407–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

18. Natschlager, C.: Deontic BPMN. In: Hameurlain, A., Liddle, S.W., Schewe,K.-D., Zhou, X. (eds.) DEXA 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6861, pp. 264–278. Springer,Heidelberg (2011)

19. Schleicher, D., Leymann, F., Schumm, D., Weidmann, M.: Compliance scopes:Extending the bpmn 2.0 meta model to specify compliance requirements. In: 2010IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications(SOCA), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2010)

20. Sungur, C.T., Spiess, P., Oertel, N., Kopp, O.: Extending bpmn for wireless sen-sor networks. In: 2013 IEEE 15th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), pp.109–116. IEEE (2013)

21. Korherr, B., List, B.: Extending the epc and the bpmn with business process goalsand performance measures. In: ICEIS (3), pp. 287–294 (2007)

22. Awad, A., Grosskopf, A., Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Enabling resource assignmentconstraints in bpmn. Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam (2009)

23. Bocciarelli, P., D’Ambrogio, A.: A bpmn extension for modeling non functionalproperties of business processes. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Symposium on The-ory of Modeling & Simulation: DEVS Integrative M&S Symposium, Society forComputer Simulation International, pp. 160–168 (2011)

24. Friedenstab, J., Janiesch, C., Matzner, M., Muller, O.: Extending bpmn for busi-ness activity monitoring. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on SystemScience (HICSS), pp. 4158–4167. IEEE (2012)

25. Lodhi, A., Kuppen, V., Saake, G.: An extension of bpmn meta-model for evaluationof business processes. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University. ComputerSciences 43(1), 27–34 (2011)

26. Magnani, M., Cucci, F.: BPMN: How much does it cost? An incremental approach.In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp.80–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

27. Altuhhov, O., Matulevicius, R., Ahmed, N.: An extension of business process modeland notation for security risk management. International Journal of InformationSystem Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 4(4), 93–113 (2013)

28. Brucker, A.D., Hang, I., Luckemeyer, G., Ruparel, R.: Securebpmn: Modeling andenforcing access control requirements in business processes. In: Proceedings of the17th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pp. 123–126.ACM (2012)

29. Marcinkowski, B., Kuciapski, M.: A business process modeling notation extensionfor risk handling. In: Cortesi, A., Chaki, N., Saeed, K., Wierzchon, S. (eds.) CISIM2012. LNCS, vol. 7564, pp. 374–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)


30. Rodrıguez, A., Fernandez-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: A bpmn extension for the mod-eling of security requirements in business processes. IEICE Transactions on Infor-mation and Systems 90(4), 745–752 (2007)

31. Saleem, M., Jaafar, J., Hassan, M.: A domain-specific language for modelling secu-rity objectives in a business process models of soa applications. AISS 4(1), 353–362(2012)

32. Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Extending bpmn for modeling resource aspects inthe domain of machine tools. WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences (87),450–458 (2014)

33. Großkopf, A.: An extended resource information layer for bpmn. Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT Systems Engineering, University of Potsdam (2007)

34. Stroppi, L.J.R., Chiotti, O., Villarreal, P.D.: Extended resource perspective sup-port for bpmn and bpel. CIbSE, 56–69 (2012)

35. Magnani, M., Montesi, D.: BPDMN: A conservative extension of bpmn with en-hanced data representation capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.1978 (2009)

36. Supulniece, I., Businska, L., Kirikova, M.: Towards extending bpmn with the knowl-edge dimension. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling,69–81 (2010)

37. Zor, S., Leymann, F., Schumm, D.: A proposal of bpmn extensions for the manu-facturing domain. In: Proceedings of 44th CIRP International Conference on Man-ufacturing Systems (2011)

38. Braun, R., Schlieter, H., Burwitz, M., Esswein, W.: Bpmn4cp: Design and imple-mentation of a bpmn extension for clinical pathways. Research Report TU Dresden

39. Pillat, R.M., Oliveira, T.C., Fonseca, F.L.: Introducing software process tailoring tobpmn: Bpmnt. In: 2012 International Conference on Software and System Process(ICSSP), pp. 58–62. IEEE (2012)

40. Gagne, D., Trudel, A.: Time-bpmn. In: IEEE Conference on Commerce and En-terprise Computing, CEC 2009, pp. 361–367. IEEE (2009)

41. Charfi, A., Muller, H., Mezini, M.: Aspect-oriented business process modeling withao4bpmn. Modelling Foundations and Applications, 48–61 (2010)

42. Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P., Vaca Ruiz, C.K.: Combining social web and bpm forimproving enterprise performances: the bpm4people approach to social bpm. In:Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web,pp. 223–226. ACM (2012)

43. Kopp, O., Binz, T., Breitenbucher, U., Leymann, F.: BPMN4TOSCA: A domain-specific language to model management plans for composite applications. In:Mendling, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPMN 2012. LNBIP, vol. 125, pp. 38–52.Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

44. Lohmann, N., Nyolt, M.: Artifact-centric modeling using BPMN. In: Pallis, G.,Jmaiel, M., Charfi, A., Graupner, S., Karabulut, Y., Guinea, S., Rosenberg, F.,Sheng, Q.Z., Pautasso, C., Ben Mokhtar, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2011 Workshops. LNCS,vol. 7221, pp. 54–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

45. Wolter, C., Schaad, A.: Modeling of task-based authorization constraints in BPMN.In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp.64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

classiﬁcation of domain-speciﬁc bpmn extensions...performance measurement a own ext uml explicit...

Documents